With the election of Barack Obama in November came anxiety among gun owners that the constitutional right to bear arms would be curtailed. As the rest of the economy slumped, gun and ammunition sales surged following the election. Now there is a specific piece of legislation in Congress that gun-rights activists have identified as the leading threat – the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1], would establish a federal gun licensing and registry program that would help the government track information on gun ownership and gun sales across the country. It would apply to handguns and all rifles with a “detachable ammunition feeding device.”

Currently, this kind of registry is specifically banned under U.S. Code, so the bill proposes to undo a provision enacted by the 99th Congress under President Reagan, which reads:

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

[B]Along with the federal registry, the bill also proposes a federal licensing requirement for all gun owners.[/B
]..........."So Now we need a licence for one of our Constitutional rights !"

In order to get a license, a person would have to submit a photo, thumbprint, their address, a release of their mental health records, and more to the United States Attorney General. Current gun owners would have two years to acquire a license or forfeit their guns to the government.

There are several other controversial provisions in the legislation, including the ability for the Attorney General to, “during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.”

It would also add a new “child access prevention” provision to U.S. law making it “unlawful for any person to keep a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, any 1 of which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, within any premises that is under the custody or control of that person” if that person knows that a child could potentially acquire the firearm. Notice the “interstate commerce” language here that places this in Congress’ jurisdiction under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Similar language can be found in the bill’s “similar bill was introduced by Rep. Rush in the last session of Congress, but it was never considered by committee. Like last year’s version, the a href=”http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show”>Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 is currently sitting in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security with no legislative action planned.

For a bill that has received so little attention from Congress, it has received an incredible amount of attention from the public. In just the past 7 days, 35,769 people have viewed its page on OpenCongress. It’s also the second-most news. It’s gotten all this attention at the same time that the country’s focus on Congress has been firmly fixed on the $787 billion stimulus bill, nonetheless.

One more thing – the bill’s standing among OpenCongress users as of this writing: 24 in favor – 1138 opposed.
snip
For some background .
"Blair Holt was a Chicago teen that was tragically murdered May 10th of 2007 when another teen opened fire on a city bus. Blair was on his way to school. "

Comments
This administration is taking away our liberity!
Count me as an OPPOSED!
.................................
Wow, This bill brings to mind the movie "Red Dawn" The information that would be recorded is exactly what an enemy invading the county would want to get their hands on.
..........................................
THIS MIGHT JUST BE THE STRAW!!!!!
EATING OUT OUR SUBSTANCE IS NOT A GOOD THING.
..............................
Once again, the government is trying to fix the wrong thing. Those of us that own firearms legally are not causing the problem. There are 535 people running this country (435 n congress, 100 senators). Almost all of them are lawyers. Read the constitution---I did---I still can't find the part where criminals get to plea bargin. Check out the Blair Holt story in the Chicago paper. BY LAW, a 16 year old can not own a firearm. He got it from a 15 year old. If this senator wants to fix the problem, do a judical reform. Quit spending money on making life in prison better than 75% of the people not imprisioned. NO CABLE TV. NO AIR CONDITIONING. Bring back the work details. These crimmanals are supposed to be paying a debt to society--NOT living the "High Life" on our tax dollars ($65,000 per prisoner per year).
.................................................
When I was young, my parents were responsible for my actions. If I broke or stole something, they had to pay. And so did I. Our kids have been taught not to respect anyone or anything. They have no responsibility. Society has made them this way. There are an awful lot of Baby Boomers out there that do not have any of the problems that the current kids have. But, we weren't raised by Dr. Spock and his "Punishing a child will scar them forever" philosophy.

Oppose this bill and force them to fix the problem. Lock up the gang members and make them do some hard labor for once in their life. Make sure they know if they get caought, they will pay--not sit around, swap stories, and learn new ways to rip off the honest, hard working AMERICANS.
........................................
What problem does it solve?
None... it just creates fractures and divides among the American People, it makes them oppose one another angrily on this truly low priority national policy issue (what problem does it solve), and it drives apart Democrats also, when in fact they have common policy opinions on more important higher priority national policy issues, ones that not only pose problems but have solutions that we can work toward together... but alas too often, someone pulls this wedge issue out, and drives even Democrats one from another.
What problem does it solve?
None... it just creates fracture in the majority (not just the majority of Democrats, but of the American People all together), and weakens the majority in their work, by turning members against one another on things that just aren't worth the political price.
..................................
The problem is that it does not solve any problem. It just creates more by making an honest citizen a criminal. There is enough gun laws on the books if the Feds would just start to enforce them in court. How many crimes how been charged under Federal laws for gun usage in crimes? Very few. Most of the crimes have been charged as state or local due to the Feds not getting involved. Put some teeth into and then use the laws on the books to prosecute the CRIMINALS not the people who don't cause trouble.

(1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;

(2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;

(3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;

(4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;

So begins the bill, and so begins our first objection to HR 45. The bill extends Federal reach over the states, and removes their right to regulate themselves in this area.

This is justified under the Commerce Clause, or the “Interstate Commerce Clause” as it is often referred to.

Using this justification, virtually any activity or ownership of property can be regulated under this clause because of the mobile world in which we live.

As a Federal judge recently ruled in the Avery Doninger case, “Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse.“

We live in a society where citizens routinely cross state lines on a daily basis. Does this mean that Congress should have the power to supersede individual state’s wishes anytime it believes the states are not doing what the Federal government wishes? This debate is as old as the Union, and we will let others debate where the line should be.

Suffice it to say, we believe that the Founders saw this tenous balance of powers between the States and the Federal government, and specifically ratified the Tenth Amendment to limit the power of the Federal government in the Commerce Clause.

We believe that in this specific case, the Commerce Clause justification in HR45 is simply another power grab by Congress that our Founders never intended.